06.17.10

Summary: Detailed explanation of how Bill Gates hacked the system and found ways of making profit from monopolies he casts as humanist

“SO far Gates abuses the front of charity to push his politics,” argues a reader of ours, “using a war chest filled by his chief lobbyist, Buffett. If the pair going to actually walk the walk, that goes with all the talk, they could start with a 7+ digit, cash, no-strings-attached donation to the FSF (or FSFe) and another to the EFF.”

This is another post that helps explain how the Gates Foundation operates to increase its power and wealth.

“If the pair going to actually walk the walk, that goes with all the talk, they could start with a 7+ digit, cash, no-strings-attached donation to the FSF (or FSFe) and another to the EFF.” –Anonymous readerI recently started this discussion in USENET, which had Ian Hilliard argue: “Gates and Co. are lobbying government, hence the taxpayers, to finance development of new energy technologies, which will belong to the companies doing the development. The companies will then charge the taxpayers to use the technology.

“If the taxpayers are paying for the technology, they should also own it, hence the technology should go into public domain, so that those who paid for the technology also get to use it for free. We all know that that won’t happen.

“These people are lobbying the government in their own self interest, which comes back to my original statement: Politics is about pushing the agenda of a minority against the best interest of the majority.

“Gates now runs an investment company in the guise of a charity.”

The forum’s usual Microsoft trolls jump to Gates’ defence (ad hominem attacks on messengers), but in reply to them, argues Hilliard: “Of course Gates profits. He profits in the power that all that money in the Gates Foundation has to throw around. The fact is that the Gates Foundation only gives the minimum amount of money that it has to to remain a charity.

“Gates now runs an investment company in the guise of a charity.” –Ian Hilliard“If you look closely, the Gates Foundation is investing in a lot of start up technologies. Unlike the government, Bill Gates is not a silent investor. Bill Gates is using his money to put himself in the middle of a number of emerging technologies and by claiming to be a charity, he does not have to pay tax.

“Bill Gates made is money by leveraging his control of the OS, handed to him by IBM, to kill off the competition and take over the markets that others had created.

“Gates is a great strategist. He knew to use his father’s legal skills, his mother’s connections and his friend, Steve Balmer’s marketing skills to pitch computing at the masses and then control it. He stopped the PC
manufacturers from being able to compete on anything but price and specs in order to force the price of hardware down. This meant that more computers could be sold and Microsoft could sell more software.

“Most of all, Bill Gates understood that you can control the end user by controlling their data. To this day, Microsoft fights against using real open standards and this relinquishes control of the data.”

We previously showed that Gates’ friend, whom he invests in heavily (the world’s largest patent troll), holds patents that relate to these energy projects Gates lobbies for. This same troll, Intellectual Ventures, also has investment in the pharmaceutical patents that Gates lobbies for, under the guise of promoting health. It’s lobbying, it’s an investment, and Gates employs a big army of PR people to hide this and to marginalise opposing views. He helps create a monopolistic vision that promotes just one path and sends billions of dollars. These dollars will be sent to him and his friends at taxpayers’ expense.

We are very disappointed to see that Slashdot is still publishing Gates’ PR pieces (maybe promoted by one of the PR agencies the foundation hired). It neglects Bill Gates’ investments in BP for example [1, 2, 3] and instead plays along with Gates’ latest lobbying (comparing Gates to Einstein even). As one commenter points out:

Einstein wrote of specific people and experiments. Gates does not.

Einstein warned of a horrible weapon. Gates is warning us that the most environmentally ravaged countries might be developing alternative energy (may god have mercy on our souls, lol).

Einstein acted alone and was not heavily invested in nuclear energy. Gates and his friends are heavily invested in alternative energy sources.

I’m no biographer of either but from what I know Einstein seemed to be motivated by things like the discovery of knowledge and genuine concern for mankind. Gates has (at least historically) seemed to be motivated by profit and money first above everything else with ideals similar to Einstein distantly following that primary motivator. Maybe he’s changed but Einstein has always held a more altruistic image in my mind. That tends to happen to people long gone who made staggering advancements. Who knows, maybe revisionist history will see Gates alongside Einstein? But as it stands now, my personal opinion is that the two are not even close.

Bottom line: Einstein was a scientist who made great discoveries. Gates was a businessman who made great sales.

I’m not sold on Gates’ motives. He sounds more like a lobbyist than a sage omen of caution like Einstein was.

Bill Gates’s limp defence of Chinese web censorship

Gates is not chief executive of Microsoft anymore, of course, and arguably not under any obligation to comment on industry issues. But he is in a position of power and influence and should be prepared to set an example. Whatever Google’s conveniently PR friendly reasons for pulling out of China, it is still right to take a stand against the mass censorship of the internet in China.

Gates’s soggy and safe generalisation about the internet as a great source of information is true, yes, but the value and democracy of that information is severely undermined when whole swathes of opinion and perspective are blocked.

It’s not the first time that he says it about China this year. As we showed before, he’s close to China and so is Microsoft. They have things in common. █

Share this post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

What Else is New

The GNOME Board of Directors works for IBM and/or Microsoft at GitHub; it’s not entirely surprising that despite opposition from some GNOME developers the head of the GNOME Foundation, preceded by people who have since defected to Microsoft, described Dr. Richard Stallman as “reprehensible” and called for him to step down (from his very own thing, never mind the “G” in GNOME standing for GNU)

Principled, opinionated, self-governing individuals aren't any good for corporations looking to not only use their projects but to totally control those projects (copyleft licences such as GPL already make that hard enough for them, so it takes more time for legal 'hacks' such as software patents, "clown computing" and GitHub)

Certain groups that claim to represent the values of "Open Source" are in fact promoting the interests of Microsoft, GitHub etc. (i.e. monopoly or "open" as in a bunch of monopolies like Facebook and Microsoft sharing code snippets/resources over GitHub)

Torvalds and others who are middle-aged (or older) males are often torpedoed using weakly-backed allegations (or insinuations/innuendo) of sexism; that does not seem to matter and won't matter when they treat men the same (or worse)

Linus Torvalds was not fully canceled; nor was Richard Stallman, who's still heading the GNU Project (under conditions specified by those looking to oust him; people who code for Microsoft GitHub and many IBM employees)

General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Board of Red Hat, explains (keynote in 2011 Red Hat Summit/JBoss World) that he was introduced to the system as part of a military campaign; it basically helped war, not antiwar

Techrights examines Red Hat’s (IBM’s) hypocritical claims about the Free Software Foundation, founded by Richard Stallman back when IBM was the “big scary monopolist”; IBM employees were prominent among those pushing to oust Stallman from the GNU Project, which he founded, as well

The (in)famous letter against Richard Stallman (RMS), which was signed by many Red Hat employees with Microsoft (GitHub) accounts, doesn’t look particularly good in light of recent revelations/findings; it increasingly looks like IBM simply wants Microsoft-hosted and “permissively” licensed stuff, just like another project it announced yesterday and another that it promoted yesterday

One might not expect this from a so-called 'charity'; the Gates Foundation's critics are often met with unprecedented aggression, threats and retribution, which make one wonder if it's really a charity or a greedy cult of personalities (Bill and Melinda)

The assault on the media by Bill Gates is a subject not often explored by the media (maybe because a lot of it is already bribed by him); but we're beginning to gather new and important evidence that explains how critics are muzzled (even fired) and critical pieces spiked, never to see the light of day anywhere

Microsoft buying GitHub does not demonstrate that Microsoft loves Open Source (GitHub is not Open Source and may never be) but that it loves monopoly and coercion (what GitHub is all about and why it must be rejected)

The European Patent Office (EPO) keeps granting fake patents that cause a lot of real harm (examiners are pressured to play along and participate in this unlawful agenda); nobody is happy except those who profit from needless, frivolous lawsuits

After contributing to the cancellation of Richard Stallman (RMS) based on some falsehoods perpetuated in the media we're seeing the sort of thing one might expect from IBM (more so now that it totally controls Fedora and RHEL)